Bryant v. Simoneau

Citations

• 51 Ill. 324

Syllabus

<p>1. Attachment—frcmdulent removal of debtor's property. In this case, it was held, that the evidence was clearly sufficient to sustain the attachment, on the ground that the debtors were removing their property beyond the limits of the State, for the purpose of defrauding their creditors.</p> <p>3. Same—what evidence sufficient to sustain. To sustain an attachment, on the ground that the debtors were removing their property beyond the limits of the State to defraud their creditors, proof of the fact that one of the debtors admitted that the other, his partner, had absconded to another State, and taken most of the means of the firm, leaving him to pay the debts, is alone sufficient. The fact, that he was aware of his partner’s intention, and made no effort to prevent him from taking the firm means, implies that it was done with his consent, and renders both guilty of the fraudulent act.</p> <p>3. Fraud—how proved—extent of the rule. Fraud, like all other fects, may be proved by circumstances. Not, however, by circumstances that merely raise a suspicion; and when they are so strong as to produce conviction of the truth of the charge, although some doubt may remain, it will be considered as proved. This is believed to be the extent of the rule, that fraud must be proved.</p>